You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor

Posted on Thu, May 20, 2010 : 2:22 p.m.

Wrapping up the Big Ten meetings with a message from Kirk Ferentz, thoughts on expansion

By Dave Birkett

CHICAGO - There wasn’t a ton of football news to come out of the Big Ten meetings with so much energy focused on expansion, but I had a quick minute to catch up with Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz as he checked out of his hotel Wednesday.

Ferentz had a rocky start to his tenure as Hawkeyes coach - “We won four games” the first two seasons, he recalled - and said fans were clamoring for his head as recently as a couple years ago after back-to-back six-win seasons.

I asked him about those first few years in the context of Michigan’s recent struggles. The Wolverines are 8-16 in two seasons under Rich Rodriguez and coming off their first last-place finish in the Big Ten since 1962.

Ferentz said he saw progress back then, even during his team’s 1-10 1999 season, though it wasn’t apparent to most fans. Moreover, he said his teams just weren’t good enough to win most of the games they played those first two years.

A decade from now, I’d bet Rodriguez would say the same thing about his first two Michigan teams, they just weren’t good enough to win in the Big Ten. Sure, the Wolverines blew a couple games they should have won last year - at Illinois and home against Purdue, in particular - but they were also two plays away from losing to Notre Dame and Indiana. Their 5-7 record was about right.

Now entering his 12th season at Iowa, Ferentz is roundly considered one of the best coaches in the Big Ten. The Hawkeyes are coming off an 11-2 season and have the guns to challenge Ohio State and Wisconsin for the Big Ten title this year.

As we said our good-byes, Ferentz smiled at his change in fortunes and left Michigan fans with a reassuring thought: “I think you’re close,” he said.

More expansion notes
â€¢ While some of the Big Ten higher-ups would be OK with a name change, I think it’s a long shot the league re-brands itself no matter how big it grows.

Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon was asked about that possibility on Monday.

“We’ve been 11 (schools) for what, 20 years?” he said. “That’s a marketing decision. All I know is that that brand’s got a tremendous amount of equity. The Pac-10 hasn’t (always) been 10. I think there’s a heritage and a brand equity there that’s pretty powerful, but that’s not my call.”

â€¢ So when all is said and done, what schools will be joining the Big Ten?

“There is not a person in the room right now that knows the answer to that question,” Brandon said. “Everybody ought to take a deep breath and understand that it’s got to play itself out. There’s no way you’re going to get ahead of it.”

â€¢ Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said he doesn't foresee any changes to the way the Big Ten evenly distributes revenue to its schools if it expands.

“I’ve been blessed to be in different models," Smith said. "Was a part of forming the Big 12, on that task force and helped create the revenue-sharing plan there. I was in the Pac-10. I know how those things work and don’t work.

"At the end of the day I think what we have really helps all the ships rise. So I would have a very, very difficult time going through expansion and ultimately changing our revenue-sharing model. I would struggle with that."

A prediction
Every time I go on radio I get asked how I see expansion shaking out. After spending a few days in Chicago and digesting everything Jim Delany and everyone else had to say, here’s my best guess:

I think the Big Ten ultimately grows to 14 teams, with Rutgers coming on board to give the Big Ten Network more presence in the New York and Philadelphia TV markets and Missouri joining to expand the conference’s footprint south.

The third team’s a mystery. Obviously, Notre Dame’s the choice if the school wants in. (It was interesting that Delany referred several times to Notre Dame and its independence, albeit often in the context of the Big Ten’s last expansion pursuit, but wouldn’t talk specifically about other schools.) If not, one of Nebraska, Syracuse or Pitt make sense.

Sixteen teams seems like too many, 12 would be a buzz kill unless Notre Dame’s the one, but again this is speculation. At this stage, nothing would surprise me.

Dave Birkett covers University of Michigan football for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at 734-623-2552 or by e-mail at davidbirkett@annarbor.com. Follow him on Twitter @davebirkett.

Comments

PortageLkBlu

Sat, May 22, 2010 : 8:05 a.m.

Oh and by the way I've always considered the national champion means you are the best. If my memory serves me we had to share that title with Nebraska. If my memory serves me we had to share the mythical title becuase we should have, could have buried Washington state and we did not. The old saying,"Unleash the dogs" did not apply at that game meaning we had the dogs but they were held back. We were actually punished by having to share the title with Nebraska and as far as I'm concerned National Champion is singular not a shared title. Michigan fans like to refer to that year as the year Mich. won the National Championship in actuality it's the year Mich. shared the National Championship with Nebraska.

PortageLkBlu

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 7:48 p.m.

Amen Kem and Robbie Webb I've been to several Pete Carrol USC games since I moved to the desert and all I can say is WOW! Talk about a one,two punch and then some I never even saw that quality on the National Champ team and I went to that game against Washington State and we may have won that game but with the talent Carr had on that team I was flabbergasted that we didn't bury Washington State. During that whole game I felt like Carr was playing more not to lose as in letting the other team stay in the game which was typical of a lot of Carr's teams. I do agree, give this man some breathing room this is not a typical transition for Mich. like when Moeller took over or LLoyd Carr this is a major big time overhaul oh and by the way boys and girls, in case nobody has noticed, Ryan Mallet is gone as in old history.

Robbie Webb

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 4:31 p.m.

And not to mention that is Michigan's only championship in the last 50+ years. I've said it before, I'm going to say it again, and end up saying it again in the future, the big ten has not stepped into the new millenia, that's teams in the big ten have only won three championships since 1970, Michigan and OSU being the only two teams on top of that. That's horrible! Look at how well the SEC has done in todays college football world. This is what, their fourth year in a row? Not only are they a powerhouse defensive conference, they are fast and have more to give off in their offense. Hence why they have sone so well. Michigan is finally making changes, because that old playbook wasn't going to get us a championship. And as explained above, there are reasons for our record. Rich Rodriguez is a great coach, the haters can say what they want, they have yet to make a valid point. Our athletic director who played under Bo and knows about Michigan's traditions thinks the same about Rodriguez or he would have let him go a long time ago. Give the man some breathing room. He will get it done.

kem

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 4:13 p.m.

Why is it when people compare LC to RR, they are so quick to bring up LC won a national championship? Please keep in mind that LC won with Moeller's players and also walked into a situation where the team was loaded unlike RR. If we just talk about the players that Carr actually recruited and the teams that he fielded, these teams consistently underacheived...yes he had a winning record against Top 10 teams, but a majority of those teams were out of the Top 25 at the end of the season...yes he has won some Big Ten titles (I need to check how many with the players he recruited), but I remember specifically how Michigan did not show up in bowl games, especially when they were torched by USC and Tennessee. Rich Rod should have adapted his offense, please? When Carr had explosive offenses, he would still stick with his conservative and predictible 3 yard and a cloud of dust offense unless the team fell behind. There were a few instances where this team could of easily went 12-0, but went 9-3 and lose against teams they should have beaten but lost because LC would allow the teams to stay in the game. Yes against the lower level talent Michigan would win most of the time but when it came to the teams of equal talent Michigan was on the losing side a majority of the time. I'm not here to say one coach is better than the other, but give RR a chance to bring his own players in before comparing him to LC. One thing I do know is that RR is a more aggressive coach who will allow his players to play to their potential and will not hold the reigns so to speak. No way Michigan beats Delaware State the way RR did if this team was coached by Carr.

truebluefan

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 1:56 p.m.

Edward - Of course, that whole proceeding was amicable, friendly and mutual. It implies that Mallett was not "kicking and screaming", as if he didn't really want to leave Michigan. To the contrary, it's not a stretch of logic to imply that Mallett was actually HAPPY to leave Michigan and go back to Arkansas. Mallett's dream came true when Mustain left for USC.

Robbie Webb

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 1:41 p.m.

Exactly, Truebluefan! Exactly! Thank you. And Mr. Sunset, you said it yourself, Mallett talked about transfering during Carr's tenure. This was just an excuse for him to leave. And Rich Rod has no control over that. Period. If you would have given the quarterbacks we had in 08 to any team with any coach, despite what experience they might have at the other positions, they would not succeed as much as if they had a quarterback that they want. And Rodriguez didn't have experience at the other positions, there was talent, but no experience, which didn't help at all. If Minor would have been 100% through his time at Michigan, that would have helped the outcome on offense, but that wasn't the case. And in 09 it was defense, although their were mistakes on offense as well, both from inexperienced players and some questionable coaching calls. But to put all the blame on Rich Rod is wrong. I will say it again, I know there was and always will be talent here, but a large veteran leadership group and experience on the field was not there.

truebluefan

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 1:26 p.m.

Rumors were rampant that Mallett was not happy during Carr's tenure. Believe what you want but "where there's smoke, there's fire". Rich Rodriguez and his system was a convenient and timely excuse for Mallett to bolt. Rich Rod had **zero** chance in retaining him. And as a consequence, Michigan did not have a viable option at QB in 2008. And I believe my point will be proven when we see how Threet does at ASU this year (if he even sees the field at all). Lloyd Carr may have won another game, MAYBE two more than RR in 2008. That's it. And Robbie Webb is correct, Rich Rod was dealt a bad hand w/r to experienced talent on the 2008 and 2009 teams. One thousand top 10 recruiting classes in a row don't matter when most of your offensive production leaves for the NFL. And they don't matter when attrition takes its toll on better than half of your blue chip defensive recruits between 2005 and 2007. These are the facts that the Michigan faithful point to when they say the "cupboard was bare".

Macabre Sunset

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.

Robbie, I don't know where you're getting your information from, but Mallett was happy here and enthusiastic about the 2008 season until Rodriguez came in and fired the quarterback coach, Scot Loeffler. "I just felt forced out, not by any person, but by the system," Mallett said. "I just don't think me and his system... it just doesn't fit." "Looking at their game film, you can see what they're trying to do with (running quarterback) Pat White," Mallett said. "I didn't think I could do that the same way." It's true that he talked about transferring before the 2007 season, but Carr, who has more people skills than Rodriguez could ever dream about, settled him down fairly quickly. Lots of incoming freshmen more than 1,000 miles from home make comments like that. It was more homesickness than anything. Mallett is a bit immature. He's also an incredible talent who will be playing on Sundays soon enough. We only heard about the comments because he was such a major recruit and expected to be the starting quarterback for three seasons after Henne graduated. Mallett also mentioned that Rodriguez didn't even tell him he would be the starter in 2008. "I really didn't get to ask a lot of questions," Mallett said. "I have a lot of respect for what he's done, but for me to be successful right now, I have to go somewhere else." A good coach would have adapted his system to the talent already on board. Instead, Rodriguez seemed to assume he would land Pryor and made no attempt to retain a five-star quarterback already on the roster. (quotes are from a Freep story written the week of the announcement)

Robbie Webb

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 11:22 a.m.

Predictions mean nothing.

NoBowl4Blue

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 10:58 a.m.

LOL LOL LOL LOL Ohio State will be lucky to finish a game or two below 500 when all the experts agree they are a preseason top 5 team. MSU is predicted to finish higher than Michigan. Man are you guys in for a big let down. I will enjoy this football season if you all don't abandon ship.

cutty240

Fri, May 21, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

Its funny.Coach Carr,wanted Ferentz to replace him in Ann-Arbor.He maybe the BEST Coach in the country that nobody talks about.He just coaches and keeps his mouth shut,and goes about his business everyday.Very CLASSY coach.Old school Coach,which is hard to find nowadays.Most of them worry about how much money they are going to make.If you remember IOWA inked him to big deal several years ago,everyone thought they were crazy.The one reason he won't come to Ann-Arbor,he would have to take a pay cut.Who would of thought that.

PortageLkBlu

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 11:10 p.m.

You guys should just agree to disagree. I'll make it simple, all this jibber jabber is simply moot points as in history boys and girls. The present and future starts in Sept. I haven't got a thing to win or lose one way or the other. My advantage over all this silly complaining is that of confidence. If you have confidence you can't lose look, I have confidence that if Mich. starts winning which I have confidence they will then all this worry and complaining is for naught, I also have confidence that if Michigan continues to lose over the next 2 years then changes will be made. Now there boys and girls I just solved all your worries so no more bellyaching, support your Wolves and coaching staff.

Doug D

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 9:56 p.m.

Robbie I'm with you on this....You are correct when you say RR was hired for his offense....I've heard and read more than one interview with then AD Bill Martin and he specifially said that RR was hired to bring change to AA with the type of offense he runs. Cupboard bare?...Well that can be debated...I guess you have to answer 1 question as to the talent that was left when RR took over....How many were actually drafted in the NFL? Not too many....There may have been talent, but the talent that was there stuggled because of the new offense plus you have to remember UM had 2 DC and new systems in 2 yrs with this year being the first time in 3 seasons with the same DC and system. I to believe RR will turn things around, you can't lay all the failures of UM over the past 2 seasons on him. It makes no sense for people wanting him fired after 2 seasons....That happens it could set the program back even further than what it was.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 7:22 p.m.

Yes, he was brought in to win, but he was hired because of his offense. And yes, like I said above, there were coaching decisions I was not happy with. But like the players on the field, it's a learning experience for the coaching staff as well. And let's face it, a position as the head coach at the University of Michigan is not something to sneeze at. It's special and a privledge. I'm not saying that Rodriguez is completely innocent and that none of what has happened on and off the field is his fault, I'm just saying that putting the blame on him and souly on him isn't fair to him. Do I think that Michigan was good enough and should have went to a bowl game last year? Absolutely. Am I surprised they didn't? No. It's easy for fans to say, ''Work with what you got and win.'' But when the vast majority of the players that carried the torch prior to Rich Rod's arrival were gone when he arrived, I can't souly blame him for our record. But it will get better.

heartbreakM

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 7:09 p.m.

Robbie--I respect your comments and insight, but I will quibble with you about a few things. 1. "Rod was brought in to change the offense". --Actually, no, I disagree. He was brought in to coach and as part of the coaching, he was brought in to represent the UM, be a leader and developer of men, and win. The feeling is, he was not the first or probably the second choice for UM (based on news reports). He is allowed to change the offense as he wishes, but he was not brought in to change the offense. He was brought in to win. And win with what was there,because unlike the NFL, a coach cannot turn over a roster overnight. 2. "Trust me, I know", says Tressel. What he actually is thinking is: Man, i better do something to pump up this one-sided rivalry or else my bonuses will go away for beating Michigan. It will no longer be THE GAME. :) 3. Talent, or lack thereof--I think there was plenty of talent on the roster to win more than 3 games or 5 games. All teams in the B10 are not equal in talent out of high school, but let's face it,Michigan has a built in advantage over most other teams in terms of everything. Their players were more highly recruited and well regarded. In my opinion, they were not coached well. Some of it has to do with Rod and staff only wanting their own guys, but some of it is just bad coaching. The line coaching for 2 straight years has been horrible. No way should we get outcoached by every B10 team (and what I mean is, look at technique in our guys--bad pursuit angles, bad footwork, lots of turnovers. That is coaching and not "talent").

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 7:03 p.m.

Urban Meyer didn't win a championship until he came to Florida, so what's your point? The old school Michigan offense wouldn't win another title either. Give the man some breathing room, Michigan wasn't going to win a national championship his first two years anyways.

azwolverine

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 6:59 p.m.

Webb, If the main goal is winning national championships, then RR was the wrong hire. RR has never won a title in his 17 years, and in his only sniff, choked against an inferior Pitt team. He couldn't even get less than 3 losses per year at Glenville State in his 9 years there where the opposition was far from the level in the Big Ten. No, Bill Martin, as he did throughout his tenure, hired the wrong guy. If you want to put blind faith in a Martin hire, more power to you, but neither Martin nor RR has ever produced the top caliber results that we M fans are clamoring for.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 6:30 p.m.

Webb, In all fairness, I should point out I'm an MSU alumni. Moved out to the West Coast. So... I'm sorta looking at this through partial and impartial glasses. I fully expect UM/OSU/Penn State to compete each year with the big boys of football. I am sooo tired of hearing PAC-10 people say the Big Ten sucks. My neighbor is an alumni of Georgia. He bashes the Big Ten. I work with Big-12 alumni (Texas and Nebraska) regularly. So... I want UM to be good on the national stage... and I'm rooting my Spartans on to get better (they did scare Georgia two bowl games ago). I'll root against UM on MSU day, but fully want them to show up against ND, in the "pre-season", and on Jan 1st and show up the SEC. It is driving me nuts watching RR squander what UM had. Just like I expect MSU to play the big boys in BBall and typically give a good showing to protect the Big Ten image... I expect that from RR and UM. Right now, the people that I have to deal with are pointing at RR as a joke, and using that to bash the Big Ten conference.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 6:21 p.m.

Mr. Sunset, what do you consider not being bare? I know there was talent there, but the true talent that was there was young. My definition of the cupboard being bare was there was not enough veteran leadership and experience on the field in order to produce a dominate team. Again, Mallett was on transfer notice when he stepped on campus before Rodriguez even got there. Players come and go all the time in college football. Nothing the coach can do about that.

Macabre Sunset

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 6:13 p.m.

Robbie, we've been through this before. There's a difference between absence of talent and inability to use existing talent. It's documented that Carr brought in superior athletes, year after year. They couldn't all have failed to pan out. A lot of that blame rests on Rodriguez and the staff he selected. The cupboard wasn't bare. Rodriguez was so stubborn and in so far over his head that he couldn't compete at the Big Ten level. Had he adapted to the talent he had, Mallett would have stayed and he could gradually have transitioned the offense into one that used some of his concepts. Instead, it was all or nothing - a poor fit for a program that did have great kids when he arrived. Ferentz, on the other hand, is a good coach who makes the most of what he actually has on the roster.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 6:12 p.m.

I don't think SDSU went after Forcier because they knew they had no hope in getting him. I wouldn't read too much into it, though. I don't think he was upset, I just think he was shocked more than anything that a school in his own backyard didn't go after him for the reason that they had no chance in him.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 5:53 p.m.

Webb, Way off the topic.... but did you see this one? Probably get erased for being off topic. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/19/forcier-is-pumped-for-aztecs/ Why would a QB supposedly of Forcier's talent... and considerable number of recruiting offers, really care if SDSU actually recruited him? If Forcier needs that type of motivation to get up for SDSU... this may be a long year. Not saying they will lose to SDSU, they won't... but that's just foolish for Forcier to be upset that SDSU didn't recruit him.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 5:19 p.m.

I'm not blind. I agree he is most certainly on the hot seat and needs to produce this year, which I believe he can do. There is also no need for the bad press that has followed, rules are rules. But coaches are always stressing to players to go that extra mile and Rodriguez ran players for not going to class. But I think that the NCAA, the free press, and the player who threw a tempertantrum and sold out are making this a bigger deal than it really is.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 5:08 p.m.

Webb, I guess I'm just getting annoyed with the blind followers on the posts. Maybe his head shouldn't be called for yet, but RR definetly should not be given a free pass.. just because he is UMs coach. Under RR, UMs record is miserable and the integrity of UM has been questioned. People need to hold him to the standard that is UM football.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 4:58 p.m.

The talent that left in Carr's last year was because alot of them graduated, although Maningham and Arrington were juniors, you can't blame them for going to the NFL, they were talented enough to do so, and who's to say they wouldn't have done the same thing if Carr had stayed? The same thing happens in basketball, if a player feels he is good enough and is being told he is good enough, then alot of times players they don't want to risk injury by staying that extra year. And as far as the transfers go, that happens all the time, whether they left because of Rich Rod or not is up to them, it's their decision. Rich Rod has no control over who comes and stays. And while people like Justin Boren sold out, there are alot more players who believe in him and others who want to come play for him. Michigan's class this year was better than OSU's on paper. And that's with two losing seasons, so obviously he's doing something right. I think that Michigan lost games they shouldn't have last year, and a part of that was coaching. There were questionable calls on the coaching part that I did not agree with. However, I just don't think it's fair to put the soul blame on him. I certainly believe Michigan is heading in the right direction.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 4:47 p.m.

Web, I guess that's where you and I differ. I think there was talent there. I think the talent left because there was a wholesale change in the type of system. Mallet left, Boren left, wide receivers left early to the NFL, etc. And if this is all about winning national championships... the best RR has ever done is finished 5th in the country... and in the top ten (3) times in 7 years. Missed the top 25 in (3) of the 7 years. And I'm not even including his two years at UM. He has basically only coached a top 25 team in 30% of his coaching at a Div I school. Carr finished in the top 10 (6) of his 13 years, and only missed the top 25 in one of those years. Carr had a 95% rate of top 25 season... and he won a national championship. I guess I would have been a lot more impressed with RR if he actually modified his system to accomodate the top tier talent he had... while he was bringing in his type of players. I know you don't want to compare... but MSU's Dantonio was able to take the team and questionable talent (3-9) the year before he took over, adapt, and go to a bowl game in his first year. He has been to a bowl game every year since. Heck... MSU's 2007 recruit ranking was #67 by rivals. My point being... he (RR) had talent compared to the rest of the majority of the Big Ten, and he should have kept it, utilized it, and at minimum gone to a lesser bowl game until he was able to recruit his type of player.

Straight Talk Hawk

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 4:28 p.m.

Big UnTENable Conference (The BUC) The new name ackowledges how unwieldy a 16-team conference will be, keeps TEN in the name for nostalgia, and recognizes that it's all about the buck. Let's hear it for the BUC!!! Also, I'm a Hawkeye fan, and believe me there are MANY fans fed up with Ferentz's undying loyalty to Offensive Coordinator O'Keefe, whose boring, many times boneheaded play calling makes sure no opponent is ever out of a game. Let's hope QB Stanzi and the new offensive line can survive the playcalling this year. Good luck with the rebuilding, UM!

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.

He tried and worked with what he had, which wasn't much. Again, I know about the recruiting classes, but you can't expect young guys to come in and beat teams who are more experienced than you. I don't think it's fair for you to put words in his mouth by saying he was willing to allow losses, because that's ridiculous. Michigan's recruiting class this year was good, but the difference is, is that we wont have to rely on the majority of them this year. Maybe one on offense in Stephen Hopkins, and maybe two or three on defense. I love what Lloyd and Bo did for the program. However, Michigan is known as the leaders and best and known for winning national championships. Although Bo won lots of conference championships, he won zero nationals. And our championship in 1997 is one out of the past 50+ years. Since 1970 the big ten has won three championships. Yet everyone who supports a big ten team talks a big game on how good they are, and while we do well in bowl games in general, isn't the main goal a national championship? If two losing seasons is what it takes to get us to where we want to be, then so be it.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 4:17 p.m.

Webb, Here's a great link. It lists the recruiting classes since 2002 and their Scout.com ranking. http://whencarcajousattack.blogspot.com/2009/06/michigans-football-recruiting-yield.html Carr was pulling in good players. Heck, the rankings of the recruiting classes for UM is actually higher than that of OSU. Now... did all the players pan out, no, but that's part of the game. At the time of recruiting, these were the players to chase. The cupboards were not bare.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 4:11 p.m.

Web, I haven't quite figured out the blind faith in RR. Schembechler... I knew people that had his picture on their mantle. He brought a lot of pride to the program. Carr... he won a national title. Had a lot of wins. But... RR? A lot of blind faith is put in a guy that hasn't done anything at UM (but lose), has brought the NCAA sniffing, and seems to have image problems regularly. And he is a system coach. He coaches one system, and that's it. He had top ten recruiting class talent when he arrived, but it wasn't his type of talent... so he was willing to allow losses, until he got his talent.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:51 p.m.

The cupboard was bare, and Mallett was actually on transfer notice when he stepped on campus under Lloyd Carr. But Rodriguez was specifically hired to change the offense, that was what he was paid for. And I know Iowa does not have the top notch recruits Michigan grabs, but Iowa was/is not a young team, Michigan does have a young team. Can't expect guys straight out of high school and expect to take over, it doesn't work like that. There are freshman standouts, but when the majority of your players on the field are young, you can't expect to dominate.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.

Web, We all know the cupboards weren't bare. The truth is that the players on that team were not RR's type of player. There was a mass exodus. Heck, UM had a big time QB that gained valuable experinece his true Freshman season... because Henne had injuries. That QB left because he knew his opportunities were limited under RR, and is now considered one of the top QBs in the collge game. UM has always had top recruiting classes. Iowa did not.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:37 p.m.

Yelmonian, yup Rich Rod did take over the team that went 9-4 the year before, and almost all of the veterans who contributed were gone after that. Not Rich Rod's fault.

Yelmonian

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:34 p.m.

I think the Hawkeyes were 3-8 the year prior to Ferentz taking over. RR took over a team that finished 9-4 the year before. Yeah, that's a good comparison. Of course Ferentz is telling UM to keep RR, he's 1-0 against RR.

Robbie Webb

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:34 p.m.

I think Kirk might know just a little more than you. And just so you know, after the OSU game, Jim Tressel: ''Say what you will, but I'm scared to death of this team in 2010. Trust me, I know.''

NoBowl4Blue

Thu, May 20, 2010 : 3:23 p.m.

Kirk is polite and also a BSer he knows U of M is farther away but then again he, Tressel and Bret B are more worried about themselves than lowly No Bowl Michigan under RR.